SustainabilityProblems - rogat - sustp - fa

Michelle Rogat
Sustainability Problems
Film Annotations - Do the Math

Film Notes

Bill, president and co-founder of 350.org, starts out by talking about how he never imagined himself an activist, like most people, he isn't by nature, there isn't that many people that want to go out and fight the system. It's required of us to do things that are a little hard for us, push our limits, fight the system
shows newsclips of the weather and other clips on the topic of climate change
announced a roadshow across the country to talk about the issues of the fossil fuel industry, and the stadiums and audience if a full house
it's a terrible thing to take a world this beautiful and for small profit increase changing it and damaging it
he says this might be the last fight he gets a chance to fight, not because he's getting old or tired, but because the earth might get damaged too much, might reach passed a certain point
"we are no longer at the point of trying to stop global warming, too late for that. We are at the point of trying to prevent it from being a total calamity"
"end of nature", bill's book written in 1989, but the powers that be didn't listen and take action
all issues matter, but this one is about the physical change of the planet
his piece got 10x more likes on Facebook than Justin Beiber's did, the article that described the 3 numbers in Rolling Stone magazine
fossil fuel industry is locking us into a future that we cannot survive, if we continue as usual we are heading to 4-6 degree warming Celsius, if they carry out their business plan our planet tanks
Occasionally they try to spin it like they are changing and becoming sust, like BP saying it means "Beyond Petroleum". Hydrocarbons are one of the most profitable industry in the world. they get 6.6million in tax breaks daily. Rex Tillerson, owner of Exxon made $100,000/day
when he gets depressed the best antidote by far is action, with climate change it seems overwhelming and too big, but it's possible when you work together with others
We probably aren't going to be able to stop them one pipeline one oil rig at a time. We'll have to go on the offense. Once you know how it is wrong, you have a moral responsibility to change your involvement. Bill - "There's nothing radical that we are demanding here." "Radicals work at oil companies."
good news, there's plenty we can do. we need to make the leap to renewable energy, it's going to be hard, but it's by no means impossible. It was just a matter of months after WWII, from US automobile industry, took months to restructure the US industrial economy. If we did that certainly we can restructure the energy economy over the next decade. We have the solutions, we know what we need to do, we just need to do it. No longer in good conscious stand idly by.
we will either change or we won't have enough for everybody
Is our political system up to this task?
some scientists think we've already waited too long
We're not going to win when one side beats the other, we're going to win when we come to solutions for all of us.
this is the epic struggle of the century. whenever a generation stands up it's morally

Film Annotations
1. Title, director and release year?

"Do the Math", directed by Kyle Nyks and Jared P Scott, released in 2013, narrated mostly by Bill McKibben, and features Naomi Klein, Lester Brown, and Van Jones.

2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?

The central argument of this film is that oil companies are on a business path that feed climate change even more and make our earth uninhabitable. The system which allows the oil companies to have so much power over all of our futures should be changed, and we have to power to make it happen.

3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?

The film explains some of the system of issues that gives the oil companies this power, involving the economy, our government, and even our own involvement.
The argument of the film, and of 350.org can be explained with 3 numbers:
- 2degrees Celsius - it's the ONLY thing that everyone in the UN meetings on climate chnage has seemed to agree to, and that's what we agree that we can't let the world heat passed before the environment starts presenting major issues for the survival and living of humans.
- How much carbon we could pour into the atmosphere and have a reasonable chance to stay under the 2 degree C change = 565GT of CO2, it will only take about 15 years before we go passed that threshold at current rates of CO2 emissions
- figured out how much CO2 the works fossil fuel industry already has in it's reserve, came from team of financial analysts in UK, 2795 GT worth of carbon reserves, 5x as much as the most conservative governments in the world think is safe to pour into the atmosphere.
- "NOW you understand the essence of this problem."
To me, the most emotional sentence in the movie, or that caused the strongest emotion in me was, "When disaster strikes it's not going to know race, color, or greed." I'm not sure why this particular sentence got to me, but it creates a stong emotional reaction in me that automatically thinks about the future victims of environmental catastrophe and I feel bad for the people that perpetrated the problem, because they think they'll be safe because they have enough money to have safer houses, etc. but I know they too will get affect, because that's how nature is, it's all reaching, all encompassing, no one is out of it's reach, not even them.

4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
Political?

The thing that's preventing us from transitioning to renewable energy and really tackling issues of climate change is the enormous political power wielded by those that are making vast profits off of oil.
"We all say we need to save the planet, but it's going to be here. What's at stake now is civilization itself" - Lester Brown - President of Earth Policy Institute
If the oil companies wanted to prove they were trying they would:

Legal?

"We have to do this because our democracy has been subverted, our laws have been subverted. I say it's criminal, and I say that not lightly. When you have no recourse in our democracy, legally or democratically, we not only have the right but the duty to break the law to show our discontent." Robert F Kennedy, Waterkeeper Alliance
- With that statement he is saying that our 1st Amendment right to peacefully assemble and petition the government justifies their actions and gives the people the responsibility and right to civilly fight against oil companies for the betterment of society's future.

Economic?

During clips of McKibben speaking while on tour across the country with 350.org, he presents to his audiences the issue of consumption and constant economic growth, and how in our current energy industry this is just perpetuating more carbon emissions.
The fossil fuel industry cheats, they alone are allow to pollute for free, including big oil and big coal, that's the advantage that we need on our side to move toward renewable energy. If they had to pay the external costs they would have to pay 3x as much as they are now which is "morally and business bankrupt". We are helping them to stay on top and beating their competitors like green energy.
"I think we are coming to a point now that extreme energy sources are becoming so bad that these challenges will become easier as this progresses. Our economy will end up being based on those competing to become the best and newest green technology."

Technological?

It was just a matter of months after WWII, for the US automobile industry to transform the rest of our industries, took months to restructure the US industrial economy. So our history shows that we certainly can restructure the energy economy over the next decade. We need to transition our energy economy to renewable resources.

Media and Informational?

350.org started in 2008 at Middleburgh College with Bill McKibben and 7 undergraduates who wanted to address climate change issues and desired deep global organizing and asked people all over world to take action for 1 day with them. Their first big day of action was fall 2009 and for 48 hours there were over 5200 demonstrations in 181 countries, CNN called it the most wide spread day of political activity in the planet's history, they flushed the information stream with the 350 message, and this grabbed the media's attention and brought the information to people throughout the world.

Organizational?

We know that civil disobedience has worked to create change before, with the civil rights and women's suffrage movements. 350.org has done sit-ins in front of the White House to protest the development of the Keystone XL Pipeline.
350.org now spearheads other actions, like rallying against the Keystone XL pipeline, far more toxic and one of the dirtiest fossil fuels. Transcanada wants to build a pipeline across the US to connect tar sands with refineries in Mexico. solution is to begin to put a price on carbon emissions to move away from having fossil fuels the cheapest energy. There were acts of disobedience in front of the White House, and got arrested, not self-identified environmentalists, they were business owners, farmers, grandparents etc.

Educational?

The oil industry should lose their social acceptability and power, through divestment of endowments. Ask institutions like churches and colleges to divest their investments because it is wrong. Worked with the South African apartheid, 155 college boards were convinced by students to sell their "apartheid tainted stock". Demand no new investments in fossil fuel, ask for firm pledge that over the next 5 years to wind down their current positions. First college to divest all their stock was Unity College in Maine, president of college said it really came down to one thing, willingness.We have over 250 movements for divestments in colleges around the country. These are the kinds of solutions that universities should be leading on, taking it away from the problem makers and giving it to the problem solvers.
The film does somewhat portray the people involved in the oil industry, including the politicians that work for them, to lack the basic understanding and education needed to deal with climate change issues. One politician in the film said that "we'll adapt" to changing weather patterns and crop production. Bill's response was that that's crazy, you can't just move farms like that, some of the places there's no soil. Bill also thinks it's hilarious that they try to say that the scientists only support research for global warming "because they are going after the grant money."

Behavioral?/Cultural?

A reporter was talking to Bill about how it just seems impossible what we're up against, almost like a David and Goliath story, it's too much. And Bill thought, well I know, David wins against the odds!

Ecological?

The ecological part of this system of issues is explained through the "Do the Math" segment of this film where they explain the 3 numbers: the 2 degrees of C, the 565GT of CO2 emissions, and the 2795GT of carbon the oil industry has in reserves.
Jim Hansen, scientist, did study of what is too much carbon for earth, not compatible with the planet on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapted = no more than 350ppm. This is REALLY STRONG LANGUAGE for a scientists to use in stating their findings on climate science, and that should ring some warning bells and grab people's attention.
Now the atmosphere is at 395 ppm of CO2, and rising about 2ppm/year causing reactions in the environment like glaciers are melting, oceans are about 30% more acidic than what they used to be, atmosphere is about 5% wetter than what it used to be just decades ago. Goes on to describe the GHG Effect, proves human made pollution is the primary cause. If we continue with BAU then it will create 4-6° Celsius increase.
"We are running out of atmosphere to dump out waste into."

5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?

I feel like the numbers are most compelling, not only because it very concisely lays out the problem, but it was also researched by others, not just scientists, but financial analysts.
A major difference with this film is that it interviews people that are well known and have great credentials, also included politicians.
Film also is different because it shows Bill talking across the country and showing that there IS support for the environmental movement, and people can go and become a part of it. He finds that when he gets depressed he finds the best thing that helps him is action with others. Film also includes many news clips of current environmental issues, also portrayed political activism in a very good light, that it's important and useful, and shows what has been done recently.

6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?

I am not too convinced by the parts of the film that say that the government will have to listen to the mass of people and the president can't ignore it after a while. I don't believe that to be true, and I even like Obama, but I believe in the Machiavellian phrase "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." I don't really see change in our government and political leadership until there are more environmental catastrophes, and when it does that new environmental leader will probably has the military backing him, because they see it coming.

7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?

This is the first film in a while that I think could address a broad audience well. I say that because I think they lay out the logic with 'do the math' part very well and clearly, that anyone can follow it, but will they believe "the math" to be true is just one of the problems. So I guess it wouldn't convince the climate change neigh-sayers, but they are a bit dim and ignorant if you ask me, and I don;t think this film was meant to address and convince them anyway.
More particularly this film was meant to address college students and other mass groups that are situated in a way to gather and be a force for change, which is pretty damn cool.

8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?

I'd be interested in knowing who else 350.org works with, what other agencies and organizations.

9. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.

Bill calls for the community to come together and act together to create change and stop this disaster from happening. He and 350.org suggest to get involved in the action and the fight against the oil companies, and a way you can do this is to demand that the institutions you're involved with, like your church or university, to divest their endowments from oil companies and reinvest that money in green energy. This is a way to take the power and resources away from the problem and give it towards the solutions.
The film talks of civil disobedience, and how it is a right of the people and has worked in America before for other movements.
"The future doesn't have a lobby until now. We have to be as sophisticated as the system we are trying to change."

10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)

I need to check out more of Obama's stand and policy with the Keystone XL Pipeline and other energy and environmental issues.
I'm also looking into how you would get a college community gathered around the goal of divestment to create change here at RPI. It would be great if we could do that here, but when I looked at President Jackson's current jobs I noticed that she is on the Board at Marathon Oil. So I doubt that we could get RPI to divest, but it'd be cool to try. It's interesting when you start a more local scale systems thinking around the college campus and really consider the complexity of trying to divest at RPI.

rogat - sustp - fa - do the math